Consider a situation where an Australian runs at me with a knife, I shoot him. Then I proclaim the statement "shooting Australians is not always a bad thing". Then I argue around grey areas. I think its pretty obvious that shooting people is a bad thing and you shouldnt do it; intellectualising the grey areas really serves no purpose... unless you are considering shooting someone.

On 4/05/2010 kieranl wrote:>"various things"? Which various things? Details are quite important.

Yes, but my main point is that there is a real life important issue in which there is uncertainty in what is affirmative action and what is racist. The details of the issue are secondary.

>In fact the Federal Intervention in the NT is openly racist

Given that you consider it racist I would be very interested in hearing which of those groups I outlined that you consider racist. Is it very clear cut to you?

>Your rubbish is pretty standard> an anglo protesting about the special deal that aborigines>get.

I was not protesting, as I indicated previously I donít really want to focus on particular groups but it is useful in the discussion so I have. I have also tried to spread it around.

>Look mate, this is a climbing website.

I am thinking about keeping quiet because I donít want to create divisions. I do think it is an interesting and important thing to discuss and people keep replying and some have commented that they find it interesting. If people donít want this to continue donít read or post and it will end.

On 4/05/2010 ambyeok wrote:>Consider a situation where an Australian runs at me with a knife, I shoot>him. Then I proclaim the statement "shooting Australians is not always>a bad thing". Then I argue around grey areas. I think its pretty obvious>that shooting people is a bad thing and you shouldnt do it; intellectualising>the grey areas really serves no purpose... unless you are considering shooting>someone.

Well, self-defence is a complete defence to a charge of homicide under criminal law (at least in NSW). A complete defence is more or less lawyer-speak for the court recognising that what was done was the right thing to do in the circumstances. So legally there's a recognition that killing is not always wrong.

As much as one might wish the world was black and white, lawyers and philosophers will always get off on conjuring up counter-examples.

On 4/05/2010 russianSpy wrote:>so we've seen a few people that know Hendo personally pipe up about him>being a good bloke which was then slammed as it's no excuse for being a>racist.

That was not my point. My point was that I know Hendo to be a good bloke (nice was the word I used, but let's not quibble). Knowing Hendo as I do, I am then confronted with some of his statements on this thread, which I was initially shocked and appalled by. There was some cognitive dissonance between my perception of Hendo the nice guy I know, and Hendo who (initially) appeared to be racist.

Upon re-reading his posts I decided that Hendo's intended meaning was not what I had first thought.

Clearly being a nice guy is no defence to racism, and I never meant to suggest that it was.

>>Yes, but my main point is that there is a real life important issue in>which there is uncertainty in what is affirmative action and what is racist.>The details of the issue are secondary.>

I don't think there's a lot of uncertainty here. The intervention was a political tool to be seen to be deal with a bunch of real issues in aboriginal communities (which are also issues in other communities - child sexual abuse is far from an exclusive province - but where the australia wide intervention to protect our children?) that chose high profile, heavy handed ways of dealing with a few aspects that the general community had a stereotyped view about in aboriginal society. The choice of interventions and the methods chosen to enforce it were based in racist beliefs (eg aboriginal people can't manage their money and spend all their welfare payments on grog, therefore, we will provide supermarket vouchers and payments in smaller amounts. Aside from the gross racist assumption, this then created problems for people far from supermarkets, without access to transport and affected the business of community shops). There are many other approaches to the problems that could have been taken, in consultation with communities and elders, things that built communities, helped healing from intergenerational trauma, provided meaningful resources etc etc, which then address the problems which are actually the result of broader social problems and disrupted family and traditional systems. There's plenty of reccomendations available if you go looking. These would have been affirmative action responses. Actually, you could just say they were public health responses.

I think we probably agree that things aren't black and white, but I think there are still uses in having standards that differentiate. Constantly swimming in a sea of grey is not very useful in guiding action. There are many things in society that are on a slippery slope and I think it leads to justification of things way too far down the slope. For example,"I was hit as a child and it didn't do me any harm". Someone might say that to justify the occasional slap, others for taking a stick to a child every day. Research has shown that places with capital punishment have higher rates of violence and murder - because if the state can justify killing someone, than anyone might have a go at justifying killing someone.

There are somethings in australia that I would say can be "discriminatory" in a problematic way with out being "racist" - ie our education system and other structures in society that are built on certain assumptions that make them more accessible to certain people than others. Many people have never even thought about the assumptions about culture, society, family structure, mobility, literacy etc etc involvement in many everyday things. Similarly, many incidents of racism are not purposeful racism, but mistakes, ignorance or lack of thought, that upon being challenged or reflecting, people regret, apologise for and try not to repeat. It's just that we operate on bunch of assumptions everyday without thinking about them. Sometimes people perpetuate these incidents because they don't reflect on them - they are never even aware they are racist. There are also attitudes that are clearly intentionally racist - these ones are based in conscious thoughts about differences between races that involve value judgements and applied willy nilly without consideration of the actual people. I think we can bung the NT intervention in there.

You could pretty much apply my thinking on this to other forms of discrimination - sexism, ageism, homophobia, whatever ism or ia exists for discrimination against people with disabilities. People with priviledge are frequently unaware that they hold priviledge. But if you are any one of white, male, heterosexual, ablebodied, well educated etc, you hold some degree of priviledge which is going to dramatically affect you life in ways you may not be aware of, because you never experience the absence of it. And, yes, I have some of those aspects of priviledge too.

Don't be too sad about my dissing Australia either! I feel immensely lucky to be born here and wouldn't live anywhere else. But I do think we struggle to define an Australian culture at the same time as we defend it, and a lot of what I like about Australia often comes from it's multicultural background, which is also what some people seem to suggest is a threat to it. Hence there's a lot of that grey stuff and I also think that we preach some things as being "Australian" whilst doing the opposite.

I have problems with aspects of other culures as well, but just as an explanation of a few things I find problematic in Australia - Spouting "lest we forget" when we clearly have failed to remember and continue to espoue violence and invasion as solutions, celebrating the arrival of convicts transported here in appalling conditions whilst failing to recognise and respect the indigenous people, the culture of drinking and sexual violence associated with AFL. I think it is healthy to question and challenge our own culture as well - in fact we are the people most appropriate to do so, as we know it, participate in it and perpetuate it.

Iím enjoying playing with fire here but I should stop before people and their tents catch on fire.

So here are some concluding remarks.

Do you support the aboriginal intervention policy? If so is this a justification of racism?

If you donít support it is it conceivable that a policy could be constructed that is considered racist by yourself or others in which you think the good outweighs the bad and you support it? If so is this a justification of racism?

If you answer yes to this it doesnít mean you fall straight down a slippery slope. It does mean that there is conflict between sets of good ideas and sets of good intentions (here for example, avoiding further damage to aboriginals vs being proactive in helping the situation). People make different value judgements and Iím not sure you can outright say some are objectively evil, even some which appear fairly extreme. This might lead you to some understanding of where my position is.

As a conciliatory gesture here is a hypothetical that will make me think about my own position. Suppose on my trip to Europe next month I meet a beautiful young lady and we fall in love. We agree to come back to Australia, however she has a sibling she cares for with some permanent illness or disability. Due to this, this sibling will not be able to integrate properly into Australia and it would be a good idea to live in a part of Australia containing a reasonable number of other people from their home country. What am I to think about this? (Probably get real, no one is going to fall for you! :P)

In the end nobody has a complete set of perfect answers to these sorts of things. It is too complex and there are inbuilt contradictions in any case. However in the end you have to run with what you believe at the time and hope you donít regret it later.

Anyway, I hope some people have found this worthwhile and I hope some people better understand and perhaps reconsidered their opinion of me.

Now back to my tent to see if it survived the fire and what mischief Eduardo has been up to in it.

On 5/05/2010 Hendo wrote:>>Do you support the aboriginal intervention policy? If so is this a justification>of racism?>

In no way shape or form do I support the nt intervention.

>If you donít support it is it conceivable that a policy could be constructed>that is considered racist by yourself or others in which you think the>good outweighs the bad and you support it? If so is this a justification>of racism?

I don't think it is necessary to have such a policy. I believe there are answers that address the cause of the problems, not the symptoms, and that many of these answers are equally applicable to addressing problems in Australian society as a whole. For Aboriginal communities in particular, we need to think about reconcilliation and cultural disruption, but addressing social isolation, mental health, poverty, inequity, substance use, homelessness, parenting support and training, media portrayal of violence, challenging cultural and social norms accepting of violence/drinking/power imbalances in ways that are respectful and sensitive because cultures often have protective values as well, appropriate responses and support for survivors of trauma and child abuse, and a myriad of other things will have an enormous impact on not just child protection, but health and welfare outcomes across Australia.

>>If you answer yes to this it doesnít mean you fall straight down a slippery>slope. It does mean that there is conflict between sets of good ideas and>sets of good intentions (here for example, avoiding further damage to aboriginals>vs being proactive in helping the situation). People make different value>judgements and Iím not sure you can outright say some are objectively evil,>even some which appear fairly extreme. This might lead you to some understanding>of where my position is.

>>As a conciliatory gesture here is a hypothetical that will make me think>about my own position. Suppose on my trip to Europe next month I meet a>beautiful young lady and we fall in love. We agree to come back to Australia,>however she has a sibling she cares for with some permanent illness or>disability. Due to this, this sibling will not be able to integrate properly>into Australia and it would be a good idea to live in a part of Australia>containing a reasonable number of other people from their home country.>What am I to think about this? (Probably get real, no one is going to fall>for you! :P)

Actually this one is really easy, because the Australian govt won't let her migrate because she will be a drain on public resources!

Sir Edmund Bartonís ideas on Immigrants and being an Australian in 1907.

'In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an Australian and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an Australian, and nothing but an Australian... There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an Australian, but something else also, isn't an Australian at all. We have room for but one flag, the Australian flag.... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the Australian people.'

On 5/05/2010 Wendy wrote:>In no way shape or form do I support the nt intervention.

Spoken by someone 3,000 miles removed from the actual real world circumstances on the ground.

Let me give you a real world example of outsiders imposing their values on Aboriginal communities. My brother in law's sister is a professor of women's studies at a large uni here in Queensland. She heads up to Thursday Island and tells a whole bunch of women that they don't have to put up with domestic violence and that they should stand up to their menfolk.

The following week after she is safely ensconced back in her comfortable air conditioned office in Brisbane those same women present themselves in Townsville hospital with numerous broken limbs and punched in faces.

Is this tragic, yes. Do I condone this behaviour, no. Is there a better way, there would have to be but it has to be done in a way that does not affect those women adversely in the way that it currently does.

Yes, this IS all anecdotal but it illustrates the vast and tragic problems that Aboriginal communities face. I am a huge supporter of many of Nole Pearson's ideas. He supports self determination and acting locally to overcome local problems without the chardonay set comeing up from down south and imposing their marxist views up them.

On 5/05/2010 Phil Box wrote:>On 5/05/2010 Wendy wrote:>>In no way shape or form do I support the nt intervention.>>>Spoken by someone 3,000 miles removed from the actual real world circumstances>on the ground.>

Did you read the rest of my post, Phil who is also rather a long way said circumstances on the ground? Strangely enough, I have spent time on remote aboriginal communities, worked in family violence services, studied and read extensively on aboriginal health and welfare issues. Without any capacity to do justice to the complexity of the situation in the course of a chockstone post, I listed a range of areas for intervention that address causes of the problems. Heavy handed, nanny state responses don't help communities to recover and build their own resources. Of course just wandering in and telling women to stand up to their men is likely to create futher violence. As some random suggestions, not all of which may be applicable, just quickly thrown in, these women also needed to be provided with safe places for them and their children, connected with supportive people in their community, provided with opportunities for economic independance, finding their own strength and identity as aboriginal women, assistance in healing from what has probably been long term violence and living in fear. Their partners need help to resolve their problems that cause them to be violent (probably some combination of intergenerational violence, PTS, substance abuse, ABI, mental illness, poverty, lack of self-esteem, identity, culture, meaning in life the list goes on). There's work to do in the community (around identity, culture, employment and education opportunites, connectedness, services and resource availablity, changing norms that support violence - these whole communities are traumatised) and work to do in broader Australian society that would help these women. Yes, the policing and justice system needs some work in there too, especially in terms of victim support and the education of staff. Problems of violence and child abuse need to be attacked from multiple levels for change to occur - individuals, relationships, community, society. This isn't chardonay. These are realistic requirements for change to occur.

To be strictly correct, I do in some shape support the intervention - I support the idea that something needs to change. I don't support how they tried to do it. The intervention was also some outsider imposing their ideas. I don't see a similar intervention in Victoria being suggested by the recent commission into protective services here. I wonder why that is?

On 5/05/2010 IdratherbeclimbingM9 wrote:>(For those who donít know Edmund Barton was Australiaís first PM)

Barton's first act as Prime Minister was the "Immigration Restriction Bill" (Read: White Australia Policy)
"Now as Australiaís first federal Government we should pass this bill to secure the future of our fair country against the tide of inferior and unequal Asians arriving from the north, threatening the prospects for white Australians."

However, - the similarities to this forum are more in line with Deakin, the Second PM:
Deakin Alfred (Protectionist)
(Attorney-General 1901-1903)
Member for Ballarat
"Mr Speaker,
Contrary to Mr Barton, I argue for the YES vote on this bill to restrict Asian immigration not because Asians are unequal and inferior but because of their high abilities.
The Asian races threaten our life style. They take our comfortable jobs and are prepared to accept conditions inferior to those we have become accustomed to."

I donít think arguing with Hendo is going to achieve anything. For him to realise that his views are wrong is about as likely at the Pope becoming a Rabbi Ė it would require a paradigm shift.

Hendo, I hope that you enjoy your trip to Europe. That you get to visit lots of interesting places and learn a bit more about other cultures. I hope that you get to taste some of the great European dishes, beer, wine etc. I also hope that you meet a drop dead gorgeous European woman that you madly fall in love with, who convinces you to live in her country for a while, so that you really get to see how those foreigners live. It might make you realise that theyíre not actually that different from you. You might be surprised to find that most people in this world just want to have a loving family, a safe home, a stable job and good friends. I also hope that you experience what itís like to feel like an ďoutsiderĒ, so that youíre a little bit more tolerant towards others and you stop seeing them as e.g. Asians Ė and start seeing them as people.

In the course of writing an essay on violence in society recently, I've come across plenty of stuff confirming of my view that there's no lack of racism in Australia, but this one really is horrifying. I'm not sure what's most horrifying about it - that young men (and apparantly the judge and community) think harrassing and assaulting aboriginal people is all in a good night out, that casual bystanders think, hey, I'll just join in, that someone blatanly sells "white power" tshirts (and some really classy comments in an interview - he's not backward in coming forward with his views) and that people buy them, or that the judge can say these were just young men of good character who didn't think about the consequences of kicking someone in the head or hitting them in the head with a bottle and hold a completely different stance on violence when committed by indigenous people.

And Tony released a great, completely non racist policy about refuges last night. "Stop the boats! Stop the boats!". He obviously finds this line meaningful. I like how he releases opposition policy without consulting his members of parliament and promptly has his own party coming out against it. It says some scary things about how a leader's ideas can become policy when they don't even negotiate it in their party room because they know that their own people will disagree with it.

Throwing more controversy around just as I'm about to leave the country - for those who had been thinking Australia is not a racist country and the NT intervention was not racist or a human rights issue, the UN made the news yesterday upon the release of a report into race discrimination in Australia. It says that racism is sadly alive and well in Australia and that the reccomendations of their last report 2 years ago (which also said Australia had major problems with racisim) haven't been followed up.

>who comes here in good faith becomes an Australian and assimilates himself>to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for>it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed,>or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming>in every facet an Australian, and nothing but an Australian... There can>be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an Australian, but>something else also, isn't an Australian at all. We have room for but one>flag, the Australian flag.... We have room for but one language here, and>that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty>and that is a loyalty to the Australian people.'

Maybe the first settlers should have thought about that when they came to Australia. Where was their attempt at assimilation?